MigL

I've said this before, and AJB has alluded to it in his prvious post. Conservation of mass-energy is directly attributable to time symmetry, as per Noether. If we consider time=0, obviously there is no symmetry because there is no negative time, mass-energy then, need not be conserved. In effect at time=0, energy can be created or destroyed, according to our current understanding.

Sorry AJB, I should have said 'if it is a real classical spin, it would be very strange'.

Well if it is a real spin, its a very strange kind of spin. If you were to take the axis of spin and label the 'up' direction you would find that a rotation of 360 deg. would not bring the labelled axis to the 'up' direction again. You actually need to go 720 deg. to return to the original 'up' direction. Someone once described it to me 'as if the electron probability wave's peaks and troughs are out of sync at 360 deg. and interfere, while at 720 deg they are in sync again'.

Did you read my disclaimer ? If an elementary particle were truly of a singular nature, then it should have a finite size, event horizon about it just as a black hole singularity does. Since it doesn't, we cannot asssume it is singular ( I believe Hawking and Penrose proved a naked singularity cannot exist ).

I don't know whether you can compress space, but you can certainly expand it ( I believe it is happening as we speak ). This expansion is vastly accelerated by extreme negative pressure ( read Guth's 'Inflationary Universe' for a non technical explanation of inflation ). I'm not sure whether positive pressure, as a form of energy, would have the opposing effect. Also I would argue with Altergnostic that GR has a 'background' on which everything acts and operates ( it would then have an absolute frame ). But as for the rest of his assertions, I agree wholeheartedly. All this talk of large scale expansion/small scale compression and condensed space ( Huh ?? ) equivalence to matter are rubbish.

If that doesn't help a very good introductory text, ie no math, is Zee's 'Fearful Symmetry'.

I did see and understand the part that you bolded J.C., however the example does show in an everyday, common sense way how a correlation works. I, and apparently Juanrga also, believe that a correlation is at work even when the polarizers don't have the same orientation. There isn't an everyday, common sense analogy however, and so, the results seem 'weird'. I'll have to look for a copy of the textbook you mentioned Juan. Thanks. I'd also be interested in eventually reading your paper, as I was once very interested in deBroglie's pilot wave theory and Bohm's work ( a brilliant man by anyone's definition, whose career seems to have gotten derailed just as he was poised to possibly do great things ) .

Your very first statement and others are incorrect. There are many kinds of symmetries, and your understanding of entropy is also incomplete. I haven't read your link, but you should probably re-read it.

I suggest you BALANCE your beliefs with a little actual, technical knowledge of Physics and Math. Sorry, that's the best I could do . ACG has already made all the good comments.

Been away a while, sorry for the late reply J.C. I also apologise for the length of the post, but its a slow day at work. . The following is a condensed version ( by me ) of a document by David Harrison of the Physics Dept. @ University of Toronto and is one of the clearest explanations of Bell's Theorem that I've read. It is copyrighted and so I could not post it ( don't recall where I got it from to provide a link ). If you can find it, it is certainly worth the read, and is much more detailed ( and humorous ) than this simplification. It is also the source of the coin slice in an envelope example. In1935 the EPR paradox was published in which the three authors questioned the completeness of the QM description of reality. The mantle was subsequently taken up by David Bohm who used Einstein as a critic while writing his book on QM, and was greatly influenced by his opinion that QM was incomplete. Bohm would spend many years looking for 'hidden variables' to complete it. Consider Bell's inequality, or more precisely, d'Espagnat's proof or re-interpretation of the inequalty. We can state the inequality quite simply as Number(A, not B) + Number(B, not C) greater than or equal to Number(A, not C) for any collection of objects with differing parameters A, B and C. This can be easily proven using simple logic. In this proof we make some assumptions... -Logic is a valid way to reason. -Parameters exist whether they are measured or not. If we now perform a Stern-Gerlach experiment ( electron spin determination by polarizers, look it up ) to determine spin orientation of electrons we find that, because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the speed of light constraint on information transfer, Bell's inequality is violated for QM systems. The same experiment can be performed with polarization of light, ie. spin of photon pairs. Since the 70s numerous experiments have confirmed the violation of the inequality and the predicted quantum correlations are confirmed even with polarizers at 10 or more KM distant. We have also now made a third assumption to 'get around' the HUP, that no information can travel faster than the speed of light. We can restate the assumptions as 1-Logic is valid. 2-There is a reality separate from observation ie. hidden variables exist. 3-Locality ( local hidden variables or local reality ). Since Bell's inequality is violated we can conclude that one or even all, our assumptions are invalid, so lets examine them in more detail. We know that Godel proved in the 30s that logic is incomplete ( using logic !! ), and that self-referencing systems cannot be handled, such as the example " This statement is false.". Our deductive logic is either true or false and maybe whats needed is multi-valued logic ( see Zukav's 'The Dancing Wu-Li Masters' ) or inductive logic. The invalidation of the second assumption, and the one I favour, indicates there are no hidden variables and reality is what we observe ( no matter how strange ). It is only in the correlation of the electron spins that we see something strange. d'Espagnat uses the word influence to describe what may be traveling at superluminal speeds. That correlated wave functions, being non physical can indeed collapse instantaneously across great distances, but any causal interaction ( where information is actually exchanged ) is constrained by locality. This also tells us that the observer is involved, or part of, the observation. But more on this personal opinion later. David Bohm looked at the hidden variable problem and explored the consequences of non-local hidden variables more deeply than anyone. Eventually he came up with the idea of Quantum Potential as the cause for the non-local effects predicted by theory. The quantum potential, in effect, guides the electron along its path. So that even as the particulate electron goes through one slit or the other ( in the double slit experiment ), the quantum potential, being non-local, can instantaneously change depending on the position of the other slit and so change the guidance of the electron's path ( similar to deBroglie's pilot wave postulated in the 30s ). Even though the electron's motion is deterministic, the quantum potential makes it a chaotic system and seemingly random and unknowable. In Bohm's ideas then, an electron is guided by, and a photon is a wave that manifests particle behaviour on interaction with, the quantum potential, which is identified as the non-local hidden variable that keeps reality separate from observation. Needless to say there are some serious problems with this model, and though some are still working on refinements ( cellular automation, pseudo random and higher-dimensional thread models ), no experimental evidence or predictions have been put foreward. As a personal opinion, I have no problem being a participatory observer. Any and all observations we make involve some varying degree of interaction and some sort of influence must pass from object to observer. Even the observation of an object as far removed from the quantum world as Jupiter, involves seeing reflected light from its surface which implies a momentum transfer. We never actually observe an object so much as interact with it. This correlation or 'influence' is also evident in other aspects of QM, not just entanglement. Consider the double slit experiment, which gives the classic interference pattern ( after a statistically significant number of repititions ) even if only one electron is going through at a time. How does the electron 'know' that there is another slit, or if it is open or closed ? This can also be performed with a single electron, through a double slit, onto a photo plate, giving one spot; if the experiment is repeated a statistically significant number of times, at different locations much removed from each other, when all the plates are brought together and supeimposed, the familiar interference pattern again appears. How did all these separate electrons know of each other's intentions ? What 'influence' is dictating the outcome of disparate experiments ? My belief is that the electron has multiple possible paths ( through any and all slits ) and the paths which are not followed still influence the behaviour of the most probable, actual path. In effect the diffraction pattern is not diffraction of an electron wave ( whatever that may be ), but a diffraction of a probability wave.

Here's my take on black holes, Daniel... I sometimes find it hard to believe that some events or processes that are readily believed on one scale, all of a sudden become incredulous at a totally different scale. Consider the elementary quantum particle, the electron. It is, in effect, considered a point particle and has no dimensions. It has a weight equivalence of 511meV and a theoretical radius of exactly zero. So what happens to a test weight as we approach the electron ? According to the inverse square law of Newtonian gravity, when the separation approaches zero, the force experienced by the test mass will tend to infinity. It doesen’t matter if the electron’s weight were twice as much, or one hundred times, or a billion times or even equivalent to ten solar masses; The force at zero separation would still be infinite. That sounds very much like the singularity of a black hole to me. Now we know that quantum effects modify this situation to rid us of the infinities. For one thing the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle makes a separation of near zero impossible because the electron would then have an almost exact position and so its momentum, ie energy, would swing wildly. At exactly zero separation, the left side of the Heisenberg inequality would always be zero, no matter what the momentum or energy, and so the product could never be greater than or equal to Planck’s constant. The infinity, or more specifically the proliferation of virtual particle ( gravitons in this case ) interactions at very close ranges would need to be removed by a mathematical trick ( my bias is showing ) known as renormalization, as is currently done with the similar , inverse square, Coulomb interaction in QED. What we need to get rid of the infinite gravitational force felt at zero separation, is then, a quantum gravity model. It would get rid of the infinity at the singular electron and at the singularity of a black hole, by modifying the behaviour at zero separation, or, eliminating the singular nature of both elementary particles and black holes. Both modern attempts at a quantum gravity theory, which both predict gravitons and allow for renormalization, have their own solution to the problem. Superstring/M-theory uses strings of finite, but non-zero, size ( separation or radius of the inverse square interaction cannot go to zero ), while loop quantum gravity places restrictions on how finely space-time can be subdivided ( space-time is actually a quantised field and there is no background ). DISCLAIMER: Of course there is a difference. For some reason nature throws up a censorship curtain around a black hole, but not the electron, known as an event horizon, to keep the rest of the universe from knowing what goes on inside, so I hedge my bets and say that there could very well be a singularity at the centre of a black hole. So even after we get a working theory of quantum gravity, we’ll never be able to actually verify whether there is a singularity at the centre of a black hole or not.

No, actually I'm making Bohr's argument. There iis no EPR paradox because there is no causality, one event does not cause the other no matter what the separation.There is a pre-existing relation between the spin or polarity observations, ie a correlation. I'm either not explaining myself well enough or you're not understanding my ideas ( same thing ? ).

Don't have the exact details of the Aspect experiments, but I do know a little about entanglement as first brought up by Einstein, Podowlsky and Rosen at one of Bohr's conferences. It involves, as Einstein put it, "the spooky action at a adistance" of entangled particles. All I'm suggesting is that there is no actual action at a distance since the so called entanglement is actually a correlation and has nothing to do with the how the wavefunction is collapsed or the outcome of the collapse. When you collapse the wavefunction of one electron or open the one envelope you automatically know the spin of the other electron or the contents of the other envelope. There is no transfer of information across vast distances at superluminal speeds.

Nobody is going to hand you a black hole to prove their existence to you Dan. But you say you are familiar with Ohom's Law so you've probably been exposed to Newton's gravity also. Its simple enough to get the escape velocity needed to escape from a given mass concentrated in a given radius. You may even have a C++ program for it. When this escape velocity is equivalent to the speed of light you have a black hole. Or do you think anything could travel faster and a black hole need not form ? For a mass confined to a radius such that the relation Elfmotat gave you is true, we know of no force that can resist gravitational collapse. Maybe you have an idea of a force that can, we'd be glad to hear about it. As someone once said, once you've exausted all possibilities, its time to consider the impossible Dan ( was it Mr Spock ? ). As for observational evidence of air versus black holes , they both have exactly ZERO direct observational evidence. And they have varying amounts of indirect observational evidence. The emperor may have no clothes, but I think I look damn good, even naked( so I've been told ).

I would argue that entanglement is correlation. Consider the following experiment. Take a coin and carefully slice it along the circumference so that one slice has the 'head' on it and the other slice has the 'tail' on it. Place each slice in a separate envelope. Hand one envelope to person A and the second envelope to person B. Person B hops on a plane, or a spaceship, and travels to the other side of the world, or the universe for that matter. An agreed on period of time later, person A opens his envelope and, depending on which slice of the coin he finds inside, immediately knows which slice person B has in his envelope, no matter what the distance separating them. Now consider the experiment repeated with electron spin or photon polarization instead of coin slices. Notice that this is equivalent to the wavefunction collapsing when the envelope is opened, but there is no actual instantaneous information exchange, ie. it is a correlation. The determination of the first coin slice does NOT cause the other to assume the opposite slice.

The math is what allows us to 'visualise' a particle's extent and function. Do we really need to draw a picture?

What is EUP Samuel ? Juanarga is absolutely correct. Position and momentum of a quantum particle CANNOT be known to arbitrary accuracy because its IMPOSSIBLE for a quantum particle to possess an arbitrarily accurate position and momentum. This is NOT an interpretation. The HUP or inequality is derived from first principles ( mathematically not through observation or measurement ) in 3rd year university QM class of a Physics program here in Canada. And I believe Juan's degree is more advanced than 4yr, maybe PhD ? And Mike why do you assume that you should be able to picture a quantum particle ? Is there anything in your everyday experiences that you can compare it to ? Should you also be able to picture 4d space-time of SR and GR ? Or the 10, 11 or 26 dimensions of string theory ? What do point particles look like, after all, an electron cannot have a volume or it would be 'made out of something' and, therefore, would not be fundamental ( to say nothing about charge 'distribution' ).

Dan you need to do some reading and inform yourself. Black holes aren't the result of 'tweaking numbers' in GR. They are the result of the same equations which give us space-time curvature. Oh yeah, you don't believe in that either according to some of your posts in other threads. Black holes have as much observationa data backing them as atoms or even air. You believe in air, don't you? Yet you can't see it, you can only observe its effects. Well, the same is true for black holes. And funny enough, mathematics predicted the existence of Neptune and Pluto, as well as the neutron and positron ( along with ALL anti-matter ) long before they were observationally detected. And I haven't even mentioned the +/-W and Z bosons of electroweak unification ( predicted in yhe 60s, found in the 80s ) or the Higgs boson, also postulated in the 60s, and possibly now found.

No. It means separating position and momentum at the quantum level is IMPOSSIBLE. As evidenced by the ( impossible ) unicorn impaling the observer.

I am familiar with de Broglie's pilot wave theory. It is not exactly an interpretation of QM but rather a hidden variable theory. In effect it presumes that the modern interpretation of QM is incomplete and there are undiscovered variables at work which make a classical, deterministic, common sense theory behave as a quantum mechanical, probabilistic, un -common theory. I suggest you read Bell. There are no hidden variables in QM, and that is the way reality is. Subject to interpretation only if we wish it to 'make sense', but it doesn't have to. Reality doesn't need to accomodate our 'common sense'.

So one of your arguments is that no external mass-energy can ever reach the event horizon of a black hole since tidal forces are equivalent to acceleration and no acceleration can accelerate mass-energy to c. Did I get this right from your word jumble ? When a black hole forms the region of greatest density is obviously the centre, where neutron degeneracy pressure is overcome first. In effect the hole forms from the centre out. The rest of the collapsing star is 'swallowed' from the centre out as the black hole forms. If your argument were true a black hole could not form because the exterior regions of the star could never 'reach' the already formed event horizon. So congratulations are in order you've just proved that black holes and their associated event horizons CANNOT exist. Any and all observational evidence supporting their existence be damned. Neither mathematics nor observational evidence will convince you,yet we are the ones who have already made up our minds and are blindered ?

Maybe your definition of an event horizon is different than anyone else's. An event horizon's radius ( they are all spherical after all ) is solely determined by the mass-energy which formed it, it is not physical, but a mathematically defined position at a specific radial distance. It increases in radius with the influx of more mass-energy and decreases in radius by only one method that I know of, a semi-quantum mechanical effect called Hawking radiation, which believe it or not, actually involves the influx into the BH of virtual particles. So please do explain the intricacies of GR to us uneducated folk, that allow an event horizon to increase its radius, ie expand, unless there is an influx of mass-energy. Oh, and don't be afraid to use math, I'm sure we can muddle through. ( sarcasm ).

You still fail to see the basic flaw in your first argument.You say something is impossible because of an impossibility. An event horizon CANNOT expand at the speed of light, as a matter of fact it cannot expand at any rate unless 'fed' by an influx of mass-energy. Just the fact that you consider its expansion means that you aknowledge the influx of mass-energy, not the impossibility of the influx. And again any gravitational field is distance dependant, so unless we consider point particles, which may not really exist, then every gravitational field has a tidal component of varying degrees. And yeah, if you're willing to exchange ideas in a civil fashion, with me and the rest of the members, I will respond.

Good write-up Spyman. Seems like whenever a newbie asks a question all the crackpots come out and pounce with their 'off-the-beaten-path' ideas. Good to have people like you and ACG52 keeping it real.

"HTF" could an event horizon expand outward @ c, unless mass-energy was infalling at an equivalent rate ? That is the worst example of circular reasoning I've ever seen. Tidal force is a characteristic of gravity, which is a proper acceleration, so I don't understand your point. Physicists don't know if there are such things as singularities. GR does not have a validity in such circumstances. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Gravity, not even an event horizon, will accelerate any massive object to the speed of light. Massless objects, though already moving @ c, do not accelerate. Entropy, time's arrow, is directly proportional to the area of the event horizon, Under time reversal if entropy is 'allowed' to decrease, then the horizon's area has to decrease, ie it loses mass. If entropy is not decreased under time reversal then of course the BH doesn't need to lose mass. GR can, and has been formulated in flat space-time and is perfectly valid. But where 'traditional' GR curves space-time and keeps our 'rulers' and 'clocks' unchanged, flat space-time GR requires our 'rulers' and 'clocks' to be variable. I was hoping that if enough people ignored you, you'd go away.